ERIC EJ1164767: An Investigation of University Students' Classroom Seating Choices

2017·1.1 MB·English

by  ERIC

Journal of Learning Spaces
Volume 6, Number 3. 2017 ISSN 21586195

An Investigation of University Students’ Classroom Seating Choices

Li Xi Zhang Yuan
Beijing Normal University Beijing Normal University

Bai YunQui Feng-Kuang Chiang
Beijing Normal University Shanghai Normal University

The classroom is crucial for students, and seating position within the classroom can affect
students’ performance. This study conducted a survey to investigate the relationship
between seating zones and academic performance among 174 university students in Beijing.
The results revealed differences in student performance in terms of seating position in small-
and medium-sized traditional classrooms. However, the results did not indicate a similar
hierarchy of student performance in terms of seating zones in larger traditional classrooms,
horseshoe classrooms, collaboration classrooms, and computer classrooms. Additionally, the
results revealed that most students considered the layout of a classroom to affect their
performance.
Introduction meeting room. Most of the classrooms in education and
advisory institutes have mobile desks and chairs. The
School facilities are essential educational resources and Academy of Arts and Sciences has more classroom types,
therefore have substantial educational effects. The classroom ranging from large auditoriums to smaller seminar rooms.
is a crucial space for students to obtain knowledge. Williams College also has many classroom types, including
Classroom capacity and resources are limited, which thus Socrates classrooms, seminar classrooms, meeting rooms,
limits the activities of teachers and learners. Therefore, lecture halls of different sizes, computer teaching labs, and
classroom layout is crucial to student learning. science laboratories and so on. Z Yang et al. (2013) examined
Researchers (Badia-Martin, 2006; Curwin & Mendler, the effects of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and
1988; Downer et al., 2007) have revealed that classrooms performance by using three classroom types: distance
have a major effect on students. The arrangement of seats in education network classrooms, auditorium classrooms, and
the classroom is an essential component of the teaching discussion classrooms. Duan et al. (2015) conducted
environment and has a major effect on the allocation of empirical research on college students’ seating preferences;
educational resources and educational opportunities. In they differentiated classrooms by seedling type,
recent years, educators have been promoting various types combination type, tandem type, horseshoe type, and other
of learning environments. Preferences for the type of types and then allowed students to choose their preferences.
classroom seating and the selection of classroom seating Studies on the relationship between classrooms and
reflect students’ learning styles, learning motivation, student performance have mainly examined the relationship
learning attitudes, and learning behavioral tendencies. between student performance and classroom type and that
These factors have substantial effects on students’ academic between student performance and classroom seating zones.
performance and degree of classroom participation. Most studies on the relationship between classroom type
Therefore, researchers should pay more attention to the and student performance have examined the effects of
arrangement of classroom seats. different classrooms on students’ academic performance,
Since Comenius first proposed the classroom system, motivation, participation, communication, and other
education has developed rapidly. Currently, various schools aspects. Richards (2006) discovered that the location of a
and other educational (including higher educational) student’s classroom seat can affect his or her performance.
institutions have different classroom designs. For example, Atherton (2005) revealed that active learners are more
the Lewis & Clark Law School (Carney-Morris & Murphy, effectively motivated through circular or cluster-seating
2016) has a lecture room, a U-shaped classroom, and a small arrangements than in row-and-column classrooms. Steinzor
(1950) and Gump (1987) have hypothesized that students

seated around tables distributed within a classroom can
Feng-Kuang Chiang, Shanghai Normal University, is the
corresponding author: [email protected]
13
AN INVESTIGATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM SEATING CHOICES
establish face-to-face contact more easily than those in row- students sitting in the middle of the front row exhibited
and-column seating. significantly higher learning motivation and goals than
Research on the relationship between classroom seating those in other positions, and the same students also
zones and student performance have mainly examined the interacted with teachers more frequently than those in other
effects of seating zones on students’ attitudes, positions. Another study investigated whether the choice of
communication with teachers, participation, and seating by students in row-and-column classrooms
motivation. Some studies have recommended new seating influences learning performance and attitude. The study
arrangements, with students sitting in the front row and indicated that seating positions in the back and sides were
center of the classroom exhibiting higher participation rates not conducive to student learning or to a positive learning
and being perceived to be more diligent students. attitude.
Furthermore, higher participation rates appear to be Research on the relationship between classrooms and
correlated with increased class enjoyment, feelings of student performance is more mature in foreign countries
inclusion, and stronger motivation. Moore and Glynn (1984) than in China, for which we must account for its special
reported that the location of students in classrooms typically cultural background. Ahmad and Majid (2010) argued that
determines the number of interactions they have with culture has a strong influence on students’ classroom
teachers, with greater interaction eventually improving performance and that cultural factors must be considered in
students’ learning. Zomorodian et al. (2012) demonstrated classroom arrangements. Research on the relationship
that seat selection has a mutually reinforcing influence on between classrooms and student performance in China
students’ seat allocation and performance. Students in the remains inadequate. Although research on the effects of
front row of a classroom may be more active and interactive seating arrangements on student learning and teaching in
with the lecturer than other students. Shernoff et al. (2017) China has been conducted, these studies have remained at
found that seating position in large lecture halls influences the theoretical level. Few empirical studies on classroom
student participation, attention, classroom learning seating arrangements have been conducted. In addition,
experience, and curriculum performance. The results most relevant studies have focused on primary and
indicated that students sitting in the back of the classroom secondary schools, but very few related studies have
reported a lower degree of participation, attention, and examined university classrooms. Studies have also focused
classroom experience, compared with those sitting in the on seating zones within a specific classroom type rather than
middle or front of the class. Those who always sat at the back considering the various classroom types. Row-and-column
of the classroom also received lower grades. seating is the most common arrangement in China, and row-
Moreover, student seat selection and personal motivation and-column classrooms have a wide range of student
are highly correlated. Motivated students tend to sit in the numbers. A single school might have 30, 60, 100, or 300
middle of the classroom, whereas weak students tend to sit students in each classroom. Determining the effect of
in the back of the classroom. Weinstein (1979) pointed that different class sizes on student performance is imperative,
sitting in a front-center seat facilitated achievement, positive but this effect has not been considered by previous studies.
attitudes about the course, and participation. The main purpose of this study was to determine the effect
Armstrong (2007) found out that those in the front of students’ choices regarding classroom types and seating
received higher grades than those in the back, suggesting zones by examining academic performance, classroom
that more motivated and engaged students chose seat nearer types, and seating preferences among various academic
to the lecturer. He also thought the possible relationship majors and grade levels at a university in Beijing. In this
between seat location and test scores was mainly due to the paper, we also reveal the reasons for student’s classroom-
motivation of the students who sat in the front of the class related choices and the factors in the classroom that students
rather than their seat position. believe are crucial. Our analysis and processing of the data
Few empirical studies on the relationship between revealed the relationship of students’ academic performance
classrooms and student performance have been conducted with classroom type and classroom seating zones. We also
in China. Only a single relevant study examined the attempted to determine the causes of these relationships.
traditional classroom arrangement. From the perspective of This study raised the following questions：
pedagogy, a study investigated the learning attitudes of 1) What is the relationship between seating preference in
primary and secondary school students (Song, 1999). In various types of classrooms and students’ academic
addition, a study examined the relationship between student performance?
seating and learning motivation and that between student 2) What is the status quo of students' preferences for
seating and classroom interaction in row-and-column various types of classrooms and their preferences for various
classrooms (Xiao & Chen, 2011). The study indicated that factors in the classroom?
Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 2017.
14
AN INVESTIGATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM SEATING CHOICES
Research Design Thus, we performed several iterations of the questionnaire,
and both educational professionals and students tested the
Participants and Methods validity of survey questions to minimize any bias and
misinterpretation. The Cronbach'α reliability analysis of the
In undertaking this study, we randomly distributed and questionnaire, the reliability is 0.75, indicating the reliability
collected 177 questionnaires. Among them, 174 (98.3%) of the questionnaire.
questionnaires were valid. Participants included 54 male The questionnaire comprised three parts. The first section
and 120 female students, whom we randomly selected from pertained to basic information about the respondents,
the university in Beijing. The students varied in education including demographic variables such as gender, grade
levels, with 74 being graduate students and 100 being level, major, academic performance rankings, and learning
undergraduates. The students also varied in their majors. styles. This section consisted of 10 questions.
The distribution of the student sample majoring in the The second part of the questionnaire pertained to the
humanities, science and engineering, social sciences, and various classroom types and different seating zones in the
education was 43, 60, 34, and 37, respectively. classrooms. According to the relevant literature and the
The study’s main tool was the questionnaire survey, actual situation of the school, we classified classrooms into
through which we attempted to examine the relationship four types: traditional, horseshoe, collaborative, and
between various types of classrooms and students’ academic computer classrooms. The traditional classroom type
performance, as well as the relationship between students’ included row-and-column classrooms. Traditional
classroom seating positions and their academic classrooms are common in China; therefore, we divided the
performance. In addition, we obtained the general traditional classroom type into four categories according to
demographic data of the student respondents, including age, size, comprising small size (40 people), medium size (40–100
grade, and gender, through the questionnaire. The statistical people), large size (100–200 people) and giant size (200
processing of the data was implemented using SPSS 20.0. people or higher).
This study raises the following questions:
1) What is the relationship between the seating preference
of different types of classrooms and students’ academic
performance?
2) What is the status quo for students' preferences for
different types of classrooms and the preferences of different
factors in the classroom?
Research Tools
We prepared the questionnaire in the following stages:
Stage I: Preprogrammed questionnaire. A review of many

prior studies clarified the relationships among classroom
seating arrangements, student achievement, and student Figure 1. Traditional small-sized classroom
motivation. We categorized classroom types and sizes. With
reference to the literature, we categorized the different
classroom types (Ankney, 1974; Atherton, 2005; Bonus &
Riordan, 1998; Weinstein, 1992). However, in accordance
with the actual school classrooms of the university in Beijing,
we further divided the row-and-column classrooms into
different classroom sizes. We then examined student
preferences for different classroom types (Bickers, 2016;
Zheng Y, 2013).
Stage II: Expert review phase. We submitted the
preprogrammed questionnaires to an expert for review. We
then revised the questionnaire in accordance with the results
of the expert’s assessment. Next, we submitted the revised
questionnaire to the expert for another review, and we
Figure 2. Traditional medium-sized classroom
revised it again in accordance with the expert’s second
review, to determine the final version of the questionnaire.
Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 2017.
15
AN INVESTIGATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM SEATING CHOICES
The third part of the questionnaire pertained to student
preferences for classroom types and the reasons for these
preferences. Finally, we allowed the respondents to draw
their ideal classroom distribution.
After collecting the completed questionnaires, we
quantitatively analyzed the results using SPSS 20.0. We
examined students’ attitudes and classroom type
preferences, in addition to examining descriptive statistical
variables. We performed an independent-samples t test and
variance analysis on the differences in students’ grades,
learning styles, and demographic backgrounds in various

Figure 3. Horseshoe classroom classroom types and seating zones.

Results
Some of the data analysis results are outlined as follows.
(1) Students' preference for classroom types and reasons for
these preferences (see Table 1).
The results revealed that 57.2% of students preferred
small-sized classrooms, 57.2% preferred medium-sized
classrooms, and 33.5% preferred collaborative classrooms.
Students did not appear to like giant-sized classrooms,
because only 2.9% of students expressed this preference.
As presented in Table 2, among the reasons for students’
classroom type preferences, spatial layout, clear view of the
Figure 4. Collaborative classroom blackboard, and communication with teachers accounted for
the largest proportion, at 68.2%, 67.6%, and 43.3%,
respectively. This indicates that students require more
classroom space, educational tool interaction, and teacher–
student interaction, as well as other interactive factors.
However, fewer students indicated hardware facilities and
software facilities as a reason for their classroom preferences,
because these items accounted for only 16.8% and 15.6%,
respectively, of the sample.
(2) Student views on important factors in the classroom
environment (see Table 3).
Among the respondents, 72.7% indicated that spatial
density is an influential factor. Additionally, a majority of
the students indicated that light, temperature, and

classroom size also affect their learning, as these items
Figure 5. Computer classroom
accounted for 66.3%, 63.4%, and 62.2%, respectively, of the
Table 1: Students’ preference for different classroom types
Small-sized Medium-sized Large-sized Giant-sized Horseshoe Collaborative Computer
classroom classroom classroom classroom classroom classroom classroom
57.2% 57.2% 18.5% 2.9% 20.2% 33.5% 9.8%

Table 2: Reasons of preference for classroom
Temperature Clear Hardware Software Exchange Communication
Space layout
and light blackboard facilities facilities discussion with teachers
68.2% 35.8% 67.6% 16.8% 15.6% 39.3% 43.3%
Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 2017.
16
AN INVESTIGATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM SEATING CHOICES
Table 3: Student views on important factors in the classroom environment
The size Flexible The scenery
Space Easy Network Software Hardware
of the tables and Temperature Light outside the
density access status resources equipment
classroom chairs window
62.2% 72.7% 45.3% 44.8% 63.4% 66.3% 23.4% 36.6% 27.7% 32%
2.68%
4.46%
22.32%
14.29%
56.25%
Completely will maybe not sure May not Not at all
Figure 6. Student attitudes toward the effect of classroom seating zones
sample. By contrast, only 23.4% of students perceived that the front row and those seated in the middle row (p < .05).
scenery outside the classroom window influences their The middle-row students’ academic performance was
learning. Similarly, students who perceived that software significantly stronger than that of the front-row students.
resources and hardware equipment have relatively low The academic performance of students in the front row and
effects on learning only accounted for 27.7% and 32%, that of students in the rear row did not exhibit a significant
respectively, of the sample. This indicates that students focus difference. However, the academic performance of middle-
more on classroom spatial environment factors than on row and rear-row students exhibited a significant difference
software, computer networks, or other factors. (p < .001). Additionally, the academic performance of the
(3) Student attitudes toward the effects of different seating middle-row students was stronger than that of the rear-row
zones in the classroom (see Figure 6). students. Therefore, the middle-row students’ academic
Most students (56.25%) believed that sitting in various performance was significantly superior to that of students
classroom zones may have a considerable effect on their seating in both the front row and the rear row, but the
academic performance. Only 2.68% of students considered difference between those seated in the front row and the rear
that classroom seating zones have no effect on academic row was not significant.
performance. These results indicate that most students As presented in Table 5, significant differences existed in
considered that classroom seating position has a relatively the learning styles of middle-row students and that of back-
large effect on their academic results. row students in terms of internal control and external control
(4) Differences in seating zones, academic performance, and (p < .05). The middle-row students tend to have a more
learning style in small-sized classrooms. internally controlled learning style, whereas the rear-row
As indicated by Table 4, significant differences in students tend to have more externally controlled learning
academic performance existed between students seated in styles.
Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 2017.
17
AN INVESTIGATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM SEATING CHOICES
Table 4: The differences of different seating areas, performance, and learning style in small-sized classrooms
Seat selection of Seat selection of
Mean difference Standard error Significance
small-sized classroom small-sized classroom
The middle row .56935* .23968 .019
The front row
The rear row -.26667 .28220 .347
The front row -.56935* .23968 .019
The middle row
The rear row -.83602* .22407 .000
The front row .26667 .28220 .347
The rear row
The middle row .83602* .22407 .000

Table 5: The relationship between different seating zones and learning styles in classrooms
Small-sized Small-sized
Learning style classroom seating classroom seating Mean difference Standard error Significance
zone zone
The front row -.034 .078 .666
Internal control The middle row
The rear row -.190* .081 .021
The front row .157 .097 .108
External control The rear row
The middle row .190* .081 .021

Table 6: The difference of different seating zones and academic performance of medium-sized classrooms
Seat selection of Seat selection of
medium-sized medium-sized Mean difference Standard error Significance
classroom classroom
The middle row .42809 .22969 .065
The front row
The rear row -.28986 .28575 .313
The front row -.42809 .22969 .065
The middle row
The rear row -.71795* .23763 .003
The front row .28986 .28575 .313
The rear row
The middle row .71795* .23763 .003
There were a slight but nonsignificant (p < .1) difference in
(5) Effects of seating zones and academic performance in academic performance between students in middle rows
medium-sized classrooms (see Table 6). and those in front rows. By contrast, the academic
performance of students sitting in middle rows and that of
Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 2017.
18
AN INVESTIGATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM SEATING CHOICES
those sitting in rear rows differed significantly (p < .05), therefore is weaker than that of their peers. The results also
indicating that the academic performance of students sitting reveal that in small-sized classrooms, back-row students are
in middle rows was significantly stronger than that of those likely to have externally controlled learning styles, whereas
sitting in rear rows. middle-row students are more likely to have internally
(6) The data indicated no significant relationship between controlled learning styles. Those with internal control
student classroom seating and academic performance in large-sized characteristics are more highly motivated to achieve than
classrooms, horseshoe classrooms, collaborative classrooms, and those with external controllers (Zhang et al., 2011), and they
computer classrooms. are more self-disciplined. The relationship between
classroom seating and student academic performance is not
Conclusion
only a virtuous cycle but also a vicious circle. Students with
1) Students typically believe that classroom seating good grades prefer to sit in the front row, the grades are
getting better and better. Students with poor academic
zones affect their academic performance.
performance prefer to sit in the back row, getting worse
The results of the questionnaire indicate that most
grades. In other words, students in traditional classrooms
students believe that classroom seating definitely or
are prone to stratification based on seating. Teachers can
probably affects their academic performance, whereas only
estimate students’ previous scores and enthusiasm for the
a minority do not believe that it affects their academic
course according to the students’ choice of seating.
performance. This indicates that most students recognize the
Second, our results have some discrepancies with those in
influence of classroom seating on their academic
previous studies. The results of this study indicate no
performance and believe that classroom seating is among the
significant difference between student seating selection and
most crucial factors affecting their performance. The
academic performance in large-sized classrooms and giant-
following paragraphs discuss how and why classroom type
sized classrooms. With the expansion of the classroom scale,
and classroom seating arrangements influence student
we learned that courses given in such classrooms are
achievement.
considered “unimportant” or elective courses. These courses
2) Significant differences in academic performance exist
are not included in the students’ final performance statistics;
between students in the various seating positions in small-
therefore, the learning results of such courses do not have a
sized classrooms and medium-sized classrooms.
substantial effect on the students’ performance. Related
Our analysis of the correlation between seating zones and
research (Lee, 2009) revealed that students’ learning
academic performance in traditional classrooms indicated
enthusiasm is generally not as high in large-sized classrooms
the following results.
when compared with small-sized classrooms. Educators
First, in small-sized classrooms and medium-sized
should emphasize the teaching content repeatedly and
classrooms, students seated in middle rows had superior
express concern for students’ academic performance to
academic performance to those in the front and rear rows.
achieve effective teaching and improve students’ learning
The main reason is that the traditional classroom facilitates
enthusiasm.
the implementation of a teacher-centered teaching mode. In
3) Data reveal no significant difference between
this teaching mode, the teacher is the absolute center of the
students’ academic performance and classroom seating
classroom. Students seated in the front and middle of the
choice in collaborative classrooms and computer
classroom are closer to the teacher and podium than other
classrooms.
students. Thus, they can often see items more clearly, hear
Our analysis of the correlation between the seating zones
instructions more distinctively, and understand lessons
and student scores in collaborative classrooms and
more thoroughly, compared with other students. Students in
computer classrooms indicated no significant difference
these seating positions can engage in exchanges with their
between students’ academic performance and classroom
teacher conveniently and actively participate in classroom
seating in such classrooms. The main reason is that in such
activities. According to Atherton (2005), row arrangements
classrooms, teachers are not regarded as the absolute center.
within the classroom support a top–down (teacher–student)
Compared with small-sized traditional classrooms,
approach to learning. Students in this seating arrangement
collaborative classrooms play a more active role in
are meant to be seen and not heard. They are passive
promoting student interaction and collaboration. Computer
learners.
classrooms facilitate independent learning by students.
By contrast, students in the back of the classroom face
These classroom types facilitate student collaboration and
disadvantages of weaker communication with teachers and
independent learning; therefore, students are less dependent
less clear vision. In addition, the requirements for their
on teachers and the teaching platform than in traditional
classroom learning are lower than those for students sitting
in the front and medium rows, and their enthusiasm
Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 2017.
19
AN INVESTIGATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM SEATING CHOICES
classrooms. In such classrooms, teachers are educational model and the level of student enthusiasm in the class,
facilitators and mentors rather than lecturers. inferring whether the classroom exhibits stratification is
4) Teaching models and students’ enthusiasm are the difficult.
main causes of classroom seating stratification. This suggests that the lecture teaching model is prone to
After considering the correlation analysis of student the stratification phenomenon, whereas other teaching
seating zone and academic performance in various models are not prone to stratification. Furthermore,
classroom types, we suggest that the teaching model and classrooms in which students exhibit large differences in
students’ enthusiasm are the main factors that influence learning enthusiasm are prone to stratification, but if no such
academic performance stratification, rather than classroom differences in learning enthusiasm exist, stratification is less
type or classroom size. Certainly, classroom types and sizes likely.
can support different teaching models and can also affect 5) Students prefer traditional classrooms over
student enthusiasm levels. In other words, the surface causes collaborative classrooms and computer classrooms.
and underlying causes are interrelated. We discuss the The results reveal that students prefer small- and
details of this conclusion in the following paragraphs. medium-sized traditional classrooms over collaborative
First, a clear stratification exists in small-sized classrooms classrooms and computer classrooms. The traditional
and medium-sized classrooms of the traditional type. classroom is called traditional because it has been used as a
However, large-sized classrooms and giant-sized base to develop many other classroom types. New classroom
classrooms exhibit no stratification. Teachers in most of types are often considered to have new teaching functions
these classrooms carry out the lecture teaching model. that did not exist in the traditional classroom and are also
Students consider courses given in large-sized classrooms to considered to be an improvement on the traditional
be unimportant, and they are generally less active in such classroom. However, most students like the traditional
classrooms. Students in small- and medium-sized classroom, which thus has a strong vitality. In terms of
classrooms exhibit stronger learning enthusiasm than those concentration, Wheldall (1987) revealed that students in
in larger classrooms. This could explain the effect of student traditional classrooms tend to be more attentive than those
enthusiasm on classroom stratification. Furthermore, James in “round table” classrooms. Thus, we cannot simply take a
et al. (1978) have revealed considerable differences in view that traditional classrooms must be superior or inferior
student performance according to seating in compulsory to other classroom types. Classrooms types and seating
courses, but they have reported no considerable difference arrangements have their own advantages and weaknesses.
in elective courses. We must understand the characteristics of different
Second, small- and medium-sized classrooms of the classroom types and also consider the features of the course
traditional type exhibit stratification, whereas small- and subject, the teaching content, and the characteristics of both
medium-sized collaborative classrooms and computer students and teachers. Thus, we can choose classroom types
classrooms are not stratified. The traditional classroom type and teaching methods flexibly.
effectively supports the lecture teaching models, while” in 6) Application of information technology in education
the collaborative and computer classroom types, teachers are requires improvement.
guides and facilitators of learning rather than the center of The survey results indicate that students believed that
the classroom. Collaborative classrooms more effectively important factors in the classroom include spatial density,
support collaborative learning, and computer classrooms light, classroom size, and other spatial layout and physical
support independent learning. This could explain the environment factors. However, network conditions,
influence of teaching models on classroom stratification. hardware and software resources, and other information
Third, the horseshoe-type classroom is a special case that technology were less highly ranked in order of importance.
requires further discussion. Our results indicate no Students’ classroom preferences are due to physical
significant difference between student seating position and environment factors such as spatial layout, blackboard view,
academic performance in the horseshoe classroom. The and PPT. Hardware, software, and other information
horseshoe is a modified version of the traditional classroom, technology facilities are not within the scope of students’
containing approximately 100 students, in which the seating consideration.
is not a row-and-column arrangement but rather a fan- The results also reveal that students were not satisfied
shaped arrangement. However, in contrast to cooperative with the status quo use of information technology in the
classrooms, seats in horseshoe classrooms are fixed; classroom. However, information technology has had a
therefore, group discussion is not convenient. If we only revolutionary effect on education (“National Medium and
observe the size and type of a classroom, we cannot infer Long Term Education Reform and Development Plan
whether it is stratified. However, if we observe the teaching Outline (2010–2020),” 2010). Relevant international research
Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 2017.
20
AN INVESTIGATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM SEATING CHOICES
has continued in the fields of integration of information Carney-Morris, M., & Murphy, T. (2016). Teaching, Learning,
and Classroom Design. ACM on Siguccs Conference (pp.15-
technology and curriculum, deep integration of information
18). ACM.
technology and education, and intelligent classroom
education application. These studies are examining how
Curwin, R. L., & Mendler, A. N. (1988). Packaged discipline
information technology can achieve the optimization of programs: let the buyer beware. Educational Leadership, 46(2),
educational achievement, from theoretical and practical 68-71.
aspects. Clearly, we must attempt to increase the role of
information technology in education. Much work remains to Downer, J. T., & Rimm, S. E. (2007). How do classroom
make students thoroughly appreciate the importance of conditions and children's risk for school problems contribute to
children's behavioral engagement in learning?. School
information technology.
Psychology Review, 36(3), 413-432.
Study Limitation
Duan, Baojun. (2015). College students classroom space shape
Further empirical research is required on the stratification preference empirical research. Modern education science
(Higher education research), 0 (4); 69-72.
of student academic performance in the classroom. The
following questions can provide the direction for future
Gump, P.V. (1987). School and classroom environments. In D.
research: Should classroom stratification exist or not? Does a
Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental
lack of stratification engender more favorable learning
psychology (pp. 691–732). New York: Wiley.
effects than those engendered by stratification? How can we
improve the performance of students with weaker Guo, Yang. (2015). Study on the Influence of Different Seat
performance in stratified classrooms? In cases in which Arrangements on College Students' Oral Participation in
student performance is not stratified, how can we improve College English Classes. Chongqing University.
overall student learning?
Lee, J. J. (2009). Size matters: an exploratory comparison of

small- and large-class university lecture introductions. English
for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 42-57.
References
McCorskey, J. C. & McVetta, R. W. (1978). Classroom seating
Ahmad, B. E., & Majid, F. A. (2010). Self-directed learning and arrangements: instructional communication theory versus
culture: a study on Malay adult learners. Procedia - Social and student preferences. Communication Education, 27(2), 15.
Behavioral Sciences, 7(1), 254-263.
Ministry of Education. Outline of National Medium and Long -
Ankney, R. F. (1974). Effects of classroom spatial arrangement term Education Reform and Development Plan (2010-2020)
on student behavior. Unpublished dissertation, The Ohio State [EB / OL]. [2010-07-29].
University, Columbus, Ohio.
Moore, D. W. (1984). Variation in question rate as a function of
Armstrong, N. & Chang, S. (2007). Location, location, location: position in the classroom. Educational Psychology, 4(3), 233-
does seat location affect performance in large classes?. Journal 248.
of College Science Teaching, 37(2), 20-29.
Qiuqian, S. & Peijun, D. (1999). Investigation and study of
Atherton, J. S. (2005). Teaching in learning: Physical layout. classroom and student seat learning. Education Science (4), 45-
Retrieved December 20, 2007, from: 49.
http://www.learningandteaching.info/teaching/layout.htm
Richards, J. (2006). Setting the stage for student
Badia-Martin, M. (2006). Disruptive behavior in schools. engagement. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 92-94.
Educational Journal, 92, 33– 35.
Shao-Bei, X. & Qulin, C. (2011). Junior high school students' seat
Beckers, R., Voordt, T. V. D., & Dewulf, G. (2016). Learning arrangement and motivation in learning, the interaction
space preferences of higher education students. Building & between classroom teachers and students. Journal of Hainan
Environment, 104, 243-252. Normal University (Social Science Edition), 24 (1), 159-162
Bonus, M. & Riordan, L. (1998). Increasing student on-task Shernoff, D. J., Sannella, A. J., Schorr, R. Y., Sanchez-Wall, L.,
behavior through the use of specific seating arrangements. Ruzek, E. A., & Sinha, S., et al. (2017). Separate worlds: the
Attention, 43. influence of seating location on student engagement, classroom
experience, and performance in the large university lecture
hall. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 49, 55-64.
Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 2017.
21
AN INVESTIGATION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ CLASSROOM SEATING CHOICES
Steinzor, B. (1950). The spatial factor in face to face discussion
groups. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 45(3), 552.
Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental
psychology (pp. 691–732). New York: Wiley.Yang, Z.,
Becerik-Gerber, B., & Mino, L. (2013). A study on student
perceptions of higher education classrooms: impact of
classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance.
Building & Environment, 70(15), 171-188.
Weinstein, C. S. (1992). Designing the instructional environment:
focus on seating. Classroom Research, 7.
Wheldall, K. (1987). The behaviourist in the classroom. Allen &
Unwin in Association with Positive Products. Routledge.
Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Mino, L. (2013). A study on
student perceptions of higher education classrooms: impact of
classroom attributes on student satisfaction and
performance. Building & Environment, 70 (15), 171-188.
Zhang, Z. X., Zhang, W. M., & Liu, M. F. (2011). Teaching
Design: Principles and Applications. Higher Education Press.
Zomorodian, K., Parva, M., Ahrari, I., Tavana, S., Hemyari, C., &
Pakshir, K., et al. (2012). The effect of seating preferences of
the medical students on educational achievement. Medical
Education Online, 17(1), 10.3402/meo.v17i0.10448.

Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(3), 2017.
22